[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50350D7F.30607@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:49:03 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
CC: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86_64: Define 128-bit memory-mapped I/O operations
On 08/22/2012 09:44 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, you fail. There are definitely systems in the field where
>> readq() and writeq() are implemented, because the CPU supports them,
>> where the fabric does not guarantee they are intact.
>
> Well, when the issue of 64-bit MMIO was discussed earlier this year, you
> said nothing about this. I thought the conclusion was that any
> definitions provided by <asm/io.h> *must* be atomic and drivers can use
> <asm-generic/io-64-nonatomic-hi-lo.h> or
> <asm-generic/io-64-nonatomic-lo-hi.h> as a fallback.
>
That is true at the exit interface from the CPU core. Beyond that
drivers have to keep in mind the possible limitations of the
communications fabric between the CPU and the device.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists